eigenstate, again, you have willfully failed to address the actual content of any of my specific rejoinders, going all the way back to your very first entry into the conversation. Virtually everything you say is based upon what you have thus far ignored, so I therefore feel no obligation to attempt a discussion with you.

If you care to address the conumdrum your force upon the evidence by misapplying the concept of physical information, then we can proceed.

...only to somehow learn of eigenstate's bannination. He acknowledges the banning with characteristic grace:

Quote

wow. I see that missing eigenstate’s articulate incoherence is something I will have to endure.

edited to make more sense

--------------We no longer say: â€śAnother day; another bad day for Darwinism.â€ť We now say: â€śAnother day since the time Darwinism was disproved.â€ť-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

Are you going to simply zap everybody who politely and respectfully disagrees with you.

I won’t, but since you decided to throw insults in your last couple comments out you go. Instead of zapping your offending comment I left the insult intact since it’s relatively mild.

Since I don't think Patrick has deleting or banning priviliges, I assume this is damage from all of Barry's deleting and banning?

--------------...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

1. ID is real science, not religion!2a. But we're all fundies.2b. We just do science differently, by telling you what other science can't do, therefore ID3. Because of this, we don't need labs.4. We're 100% for free enquiry. End censorship! We even did a film on it.5. We don't like peer review, though6. And we don't like science blogs7. But we have our own blog!8. We get to pick the subjects (lots of Jesus)9. And if you don't agree with us, you get banned.10. And if you don't say what we want you get banned, before you've not said it.

"PS: Since we are plainly dealing with those who will gleefully snip words out of context and maliciously twist them to try to deride, denigrate and dismiss –as we saw so plainly across the week and weekend past, let me explain. Do, be patient; we are dealing with willful, hostility driven twisters at sites like AtBC and Anti Evo, not fair minded and civil participants in dialogue."

I like that the posting software melts down along with Barry. Unnumbered posts, posts with the same number, timestamps out of order, and non-nested replies. People referring to and quoting from comments that aren't there.

Yeah, by coincidence the same thing happened a lot to Salvador Corwegotfuckedindova.

We are all too suspicious; these are clearly the necessary birth pangs of a revolution we're witnessing.

5 responses. 3 marked OT by batshit as he just cannot resist spamming a thread with his BS links. 1 post by ScottAndrews2 before Robert Byers brings the misogny:

Quote

Men were created by God to serve God and do well in so doing.Women were only created to help men(husbands) in this.they have less of the innate motivation to achieve.Fighting is just about conflicts between people and men simply have more and they are important.

It can’t be beat that women and men are very different in the sexual identity motivations and purposes.

If Denyse were a real woman she would beat him around the head for those statements (I know ... I know ...). Apparently birds of a Canadian feather are thicker than water. Or something like that.

I can't image she would let this shit go if she didn't have to take the big tent into consideration. Alternatively, maybe she agrees with him.

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

The predominant concept of the benzine ring structure; sometimes this is viewed as a superposition of individual bond structures. At any rate the possibility of quantum systems based on superposed "parent" states is acknowledged. indeed, this is held to be so for, for instance, the Carboxylic acid group, -COOH

1) Individual bond structures are not wave functions, so their combination is not superposition. In superposition states you can collapse the wave function to one term.You cannot get kekule' benzene.2) The orbital approximation uses PRODUCTS of one electron functions called orbitals. Superpositions are sums.3) Additional improvements are to better describe a single stationary state.4) COOH has a bouble bond and a single bond. COO- has two identical C-O bonds

Men were created by God to serve God and do well in so doing.Women were only created to help men(husbands) in this.they have less of the innate motivation to achieve.Fighting is just about conflicts between people and men simply have more and they are important.

It can’t be beat that women and men are very different in the sexual identity motivations and purposes.

“The problem here is that after 2,000 years, it is impossible to prove something like, say, the resurrection.”

Well, it depends on what you are willing to accept for proof. If you are willing to accept the overwhelming historical record, including hundreds of eyewitnesses, then yes the resurrection can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

followed by this:

Quote

I never said we have the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses. I said the record states there were hundreds of eyewitnesses.

A record written decades after the alleged events by persons unknown with political axes to grind, Barry? This is what passes for evidence in Colorado courts?

“The problem here is that after 2,000 years, it is impossible to prove something like, say, the resurrection.”

Well, it depends on what you are willing to accept for proof. If you are willing to accept the overwhelming historical record, including hundreds of eyewitnesses, then yes the resurrection can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

followed by this:

Quote

I never said we have the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses. I said the record states there were hundreds of eyewitnesses.

A record written decades after the alleged events by persons unknown with political axes to grind, Barry? This is what passes for evidence in Colorado courts?

We know that talking lions exist because "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is set partly in London, which is a real city even to this day and is historically documented through various sources. Plus Aslan's death was witnessed independently by Lucy, Susan, the white witch and and bunch of talking forest creatures.

“The problem here is that after 2,000 years, it is impossible to prove something like, say, the resurrection.”

Well, it depends on what you are willing to accept for proof. If you are willing to accept the overwhelming historical record, including hundreds of eyewitnesses, then yes the resurrection can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

followed by this:

Quote

I never said we have the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses. I said the record states there were hundreds of eyewitnesses.

A record written decades after the alleged events by persons unknown with political axes to grind, Barry? This is what passes for evidence in Colorado courts?

So... if I say a thousand people saw Arrington raping a duck, that's exactly the same as a thousand people saying they saw him raping a duck. Good to know.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Because of his history (not in spite of it), Ehrman writes with understanding and sympathy about what believers take as true about the New Testament, while pulling no punches in taking on the nature of ancient forgery, how it was viewed by scholars and the public during the ancient period, the motivations and intents that might lead to forgery, and so forth.

That's the cool part. Looking at very old scholarship that wasn't done by sneering atheists.

Edited by midwifetoad on Feb. 14 2012,11:53

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

The law of non-contradiction (“LNC”) states that for any proposition “A,” A cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same formal relation.

The existence of the LNC is the very basis of all argumentation, and anyone who denies it also denies meaning, order, truth and logic. For obvious reasons, therefore, it is not only useless but also affirmatively harmful to the search for truth to argue with someone who refuses to admit unambiguously the LNC. Arguing with a person who denies the basis for argument is self-defeating and can lead only to confusion. Only a fool or a charlatan denies the LNC, and this site will not be a platform from which fools and charlatans will be allowed to spew their noxious inanities.

For that reason, I am today announcing a new moderation policy at UD. At any time the moderator reserves the right to ask the following question to any person who would comment or continue to comment on this site: “Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?” The answer to this question is either “yes” or “no.” If the person gives any answer other than the single word “no,” he or she will immediately be deemed not worth arguing with and therefore banned from this site.

We will start with Petrushka to demonstrate the application of the policy. Petrushka, can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?

My opinion: bizarre.

--------------We no longer say: â€śAnother day; another bad day for Darwinism.â€ť We now say: â€śAnother day since the time Darwinism was disproved.â€ť-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

The law of non-contradiction (“LNC”) states that for any proposition “A,” A cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same formal relation.

The existence of the LNC is the very basis of all argumentation, and anyone who denies it also denies meaning, order, truth and logic. For obvious reasons, therefore, it is not only useless but also affirmatively harmful to the search for truth to argue with someone who refuses to admit unambiguously the LNC. Arguing with a person who denies the basis for argument is self-defeating and can lead only to confusion. Only a fool or a charlatan denies the LNC, and this site will not be a platform from which fools and charlatans will be allowed to spew their noxious inanities.

For that reason, I am today announcing a new moderation policy at UD. At any time the moderator reserves the right to ask the following question to any person who would comment or continue to comment on this site: “Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?” The answer to this question is either “yes” or “no.” If the person gives any answer other than the single word “no,” he or she will immediately be deemed not worth arguing with and therefore banned from this site.

We will start with Petrushka to demonstrate the application of the policy. Petrushka, can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?

My opinion: bizarre.

And arrogantly prickish.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Petrushka February 14, 2012 at 2:37 pmI accept the definitional foundation of logic.

I also accept the findings of physics which make the concept of physical existence rather complicated. That just means that physical is not the same as the ideal, just as a physical circle is not an ideal circle.

I thought this was something generally agreed upon. I thought it was the foundation of Plato’s thought.

But to answer the specific question, in formal logic, the moon cannot both exist and not exist.